About your Search

20130423
20130423
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7
, the first appearance was with judge marianne boulder and she was there to review his miranda rights with him, among other things. you've been hearing a lot about miranda rights. there's issue at play here that need to be clarified. we're going to read a couple of the things said from the hearing. we have the transcript. the judge said, quoting here, you have been charged with one use of a weapon often mass destruction and malicious destruction of property resulting in death. the case is being prosecuted in part by william weinreb. the maximum penalty on each count is death or imprisonment for any terms of years, or life. and there was this finding from the judge, and this one is important. quote, i find that the defendant is alert, mentally competent, and lucid. he is aware of the nature of the proceedings. okay? so that is the basis for the discussion. joined by retired superior court judge isaac borenstein in boston. he's done hospital visits over his 22 years as a judge. let us begin with the idea, confusion and frustration about miranda rights. give them right away, if you don't give the
. >> let's talk about the issue a lot of people have been talking about. not everybody, but some. miranda rights. we've watched enough detective shows no know, police shows, they give miranda rights almost like blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. it's done. why do you think that's an issue? now we just got the word as we went on the air tonight the defendant here, the suspect, i guess he's a defendant now, has been given his miranda rights. >> this is truly something of an urban legend. people like to watch shows where a criminal goes free because he wasn't given miranda rights. that's extremely rare. i do criminal defense work. i can tell you, the most you can hope for in a miranda case is one or two statements will not make it into court. it's rare the whole case falls out unless everything -- >> so it's not the poison fruit thing? >> there is a poison fruit provision, standard. but it's very rare for it to pollute an entire case. >> let me ask you practically, why don't the law enforcement officials, the federal officials up there who have him in custody at the hospital, why didn't they just
federal government has done the right thing. when ints that somehow suspects have right to counsel miranda warnings causes them to stop cooperating with law enforcement is not facts and studies. and ct, d.o.j. officials senior law enforcement officials 90% of the ou 80% to time in sophisticated cases when defense counsel get involved to help emhis more and icit more information allow the case to go forward. there have been multiple cases 9/11 that have been prosecuted, investigated and prosecuted by law enforcement resulted in more information available to law lawful tools ing without needing to violate rights. senator mentioned graham. he pushed against the decision the combatant status. [video clip] >> i hope the congress will at this case and look at our laws and come to the to.lusion that i have come we are at war. for a going to be at war very long time and we have to have the tools to defend values.es within our one of those tools is the ability to question people about future attacks to gather intelligence for national purposes without benefit of counsel. the information will neve
and lucid enough to get his miranda rights read to him, also thoughts he shot himself through the neck, that's been really brought into question now, as an eyewitness there to help take him down, looks like a cut or maybe something exploded, a shrapnel cut, those that the boston marathon, those that suffered during the explosion. he said i'm motivated by religion, that religion being islamic extremism or islam. he went on to say i have no outside ties. i'm not part of a larger group. isn't that convenient. >>steve: both brothers went to a mosque in cambridge. it was the older brother. clearly the younger brother was following the older brother in life in so many different ways. we told you a little bit yesterday about some of the outbursts the older brother had at the mosque in cambridge. for instance, back in november where they were talking about it was okay for muslims to celebrate american holidays like thanksgiving and the 4th of july and tamerlan, the older brother, stood up and argued. then in january there was a praise for martin luther king jr. and he got up and called someone a hyp
with american citizens. it allows the justice department to delay reading a suspect his miranda rights if doing so is in the interest of -- quote -- "public safety." the administration had rightly invoked this public safety exception in the case of the boston suspect which provided our national security professionals a discreet period of time to gather intelligence from the suspect without the presence of his lawyer. however, soon after questioning him this way, the administration recently reversed itself and read the suspect his miranda rights. in doing so, the administration, in my view, gave up a valuable opportunity to lawfully and thoroughly question the suspect for purposes of gathering intelligence about potential future terrorist plots. whether we will be able to acquire such information has now been left entirely at the discretion of the suspect and his lawyer. put simply, the suspect has been told he has the right to remain silent, and if he doesn't want to provide intelligence, he doesn't have to. is this a responsible balance between a citizen's rights and our national security? the
, let me come over to you, a lot of talk about miranda. but give me a sense of what the leeway is especially in situations like this, after acts like what happened here at the marathon. >> well, it is yesterday's news. he's been given his miranda warnings and probably anything he said without his miranda warnings is not going to be needed by the government or the prosecution. remember, they did not indict him as a terrorist, that's very important. they indicted him as an ordinary murderer, anybody who wants to kill their mother-in-law, business partner and makes an improvised explosive device and kills them is just as guilty under the statute indicted as osama bin laden might be. this is not a terrorist prosecution. they don't have to prove intent to terrorize, intent to intimidate. they can prove their case just through the videotapes. now, i predict there are going to be two types of possible defenses in this case. number one, the jihad defense. i did it, i'm proud, i'm happy, please kill me, i want to join my brother in paradise. i'm a martyr. the other, my brother made me d
-- the federal system today, was read his miranda rights. he has never been designated. can you imagine what a sum of bin laden's son in law can tell us about the terrorist organization put he was the spokesman after 9/11. there is a disturbing pattern of not gathering intelligence when that opportunity exists. they care very much. i have to go. we will go next door to answer any questions that you have about the act by and we are going to observe a moment of silence for the folks in boston. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> stakeholders testified on capitol hill on the immigration bill. john mccain, chuck schumer, dick durbin, lindsey graham, robert menendez, marker rubio, jeff flake, and michael bennett are the architects of the legislation. >> about the problems with the program, and i am happy we will find a way with this improved program to make this work better. sometimes the alphabet soup of immigration programs and the endless rules can get confusing. can one of you explain what you see as the biggest p
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7